The Trump Doctrine: America's Return to Imperial Spheres of Influence

Introduction: A New World Disorder

The international system is undergoing its most profound transformation since the end of the Cold War, driven primarily by the United States’ abandonment of the liberal world order it once championed. Under President Trump’s second term, we are witnessing a dramatic shift toward a might-makes-right approach that explicitly asserts American spheres of influence while denying other nations the same rights. This analysis examines the implications of this transformation, particularly focusing on recent interventions in Venezuela, threats against Iran, and the ongoing Ukraine conflict, all while considering the broader context of emerging multipolarity and the resistance from Global South nations.

The Venezuela Precedent: Imperialism Revisited

The Trump administration’s implementation of what commentators call the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” represents a stark return to 19th-century imperial policies. The attempted regime change in Venezuela, though ultimately unsuccessful in its most extreme form, demonstrates Washington’s willingness to openly violate sovereignty principles when it serves American interests. What makes this particularly alarming is not the novelty of American interventionism—history is replete with examples—but the brazenness with which it’s being executed and the precedent it sets for international relations.

Fyodor Lukyanov, one of Russia’s most astute foreign policy analysts, notes that the international community expected traditional American interventionism but was surprised by the specific format and execution. This unpredictability reflects a broader strategic consistency masked by tactical creativity—a hallmark of the Trump approach to foreign policy. The message to the world is clear: America claims exclusive rights to spheres of influence while denying others the same privilege.

Iran and Eurasian Security: The Next Frontier

The discussion around potential U.S. intervention in Iran reveals even more dangerous implications for global stability. Unlike Venezuela, Iran represents a crucial pillar of Eurasian security architecture, with significant implications for Russia, China, and regional powers. The prospect of American or Israeli military action against Iran threatens to destabilize the entire region, affecting critical transport routes, energy security, and the delicate balance of power in the Middle East.

Lukyanov correctly identifies that Iran represents a fundamentally different calculus than Venezuela. As a BRICS member and regional power with deep historical roots and significant military capabilities, any attempt at regime change would force Russia and China into positions they would prefer to avoid. The North-South transport corridor and China’s Belt and Road Initiative would face existential threats if Iran were to collapse or undergo radical political transformation.

The Ukrainian Crucible: Last Battle of the Cold War

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine represents what Lukyanov aptly describes as “the last battle of the Cold War”—an unresolved issue from the post-Soviet settlement that has festered for decades. Russia’s objectives, consistently articulated though often misinterpreted in Western media, focus primarily on ensuring Ukraine cannot serve as a military platform against Russian interests—a concept historically known as “Finlandization.”

The tragedy of this conflict lies in its preventability. As Lukyanov notes, figures like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski had previously suggested Finlandization as a solution during the 2014 crisis, but this was rejected as an infringement on Ukrainian sovereignty. Now, after years of conflict and significant territorial changes, the situation has deteriorated to where compromise appears increasingly difficult.

The Demise of the Liberal World Order

The most significant revelation from this analysis is the conclusive death of the liberal international order. Ironically, the architect of this system—the United States—has become its primary executioner. Neither Russia, China, nor any other power could have dismantled the rules-based order; only America possessed that capability. Trump’s presidency has merely accelerated a process that began earlier, revealing the fundamental hypocrisy underlying Western claims to moral leadership in international affairs.

This transformation creates what Lukyanov describes as “confusion” among international actors who previously positioned themselves as critics of the rules-based order. Now facing a world without rules, these nations must reconsider their strategies and capabilities in an environment where American power remains predominant despite relative decline.

European Paralysis and Strategic Irrelevance

Europe’s response to these changes demonstrates profound strategic paralysis. The European project, conceived during a specific historical moment and dependent on American security guarantees, finds itself unable to adapt to the new reality. European leaders continue operating as if the liberal order persists, doubling down on failed approaches rather than developing new strategies responsive to the emerging multipolar world.

The Ukrainian conflict particularly highlights European dysfunction. Rather than seeking pragmatic solutions, European politicians use anti-Russian sentiment as glue to maintain continental unity despite growing internal divisions. This approach ultimately serves neither European interests nor global stability, instead perpetuating conflicts that could otherwise be resolved through diplomatic engagement.

The Global South Perspective: Resistance and Adaptation

From the perspective of Global South nations, particularly civilizational states like India and China, America’s return to explicit imperialism confirms long-held suspicions about Western intentions. The unilateral application of “international rules” that primarily serve Western interests has been exposed as a convenient fiction masking deeper power politics.

Developing nations now face a strategic choice: submit to American hegemony or work toward genuine multipolarity. The BRICS expansion and growing South-South cooperation represent promising alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. However, as the Venezuela case demonstrates, American resistance to these emerging frameworks remains formidable.

Conclusion: Toward a More Equitable World Order

The current international transformation, while dangerous and unstable, ultimately presents opportunities for creating a more equitable global system. American unilateralism has exposed the hypocrisy of Western claims to moral leadership, creating space for alternative visions of international relations. The challenge for Global South nations is to navigate this transitional period while avoiding both submission to American hegemony and destructive conflict.

Russia’s concept of itself as a “Eurasian power with clear understanding of its limitations” offers a model other nations might emulate—acknowledging both capabilities and constraints while pursuing national interests within a multipolar framework. The ideal world, as Lukyanov suggests, would be one where peace and cooperation allow Russia’s geographic inevitability to become an asset rather than a threat.

Ultimately, the Trump doctrine’s greatest legacy may be accelerating the emergence of a truly multipolar world where no single power can dictate terms to others. While this transition involves significant risks and potential conflicts, it also offers the possibility of a more just international system respectful of different civilizational perspectives and development models. The struggle ahead will determine whether this emerging order reflects the interests of all nations or merely replaces American hegemony with alternative forms of domination.